If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

> But I see that you obtain some sense of absolution for
> VB.Net by referring to what I wrote six years ago...

Mike: I can't speak for John, but I referred to what you wrote for reasons
that have nothing to do with VB.NET. What you wrote was in response to an
article about VB5. A few posts up, you proclaimed VB6 to be (in so many
words) the best version of VB. So my question is: How could you write
negatively about VB5, yet praise VB6 so effusively?

My theory is that you simply enjoy complaining: If MS had released a
syntax-compatible upgrade to VB6, I have little doubt you would have found
something about it to denegrate.
--
Phil Weber

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 22:33:39 +0000, Mike Mitchell wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:04:15 +1100, "Jason Sobell iGadget"
> <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have always believed that VB.NET was only released to provide an escape
>>route for companies to move away from VB6 to the .NET platform.
>>MS clearly did not want to continue with VB6 for many of the valid reasons
>>that Paul mentioned, and they wanted to move to a Java/C++ style language so
>>they decided on C#. There was no way that industry would be happy to find
>>that none of their developers could use this new language, in the same way
>>that they didn't exactly flock from VB to Visual C++ when it was released,
>>so the decision was presumably made to include a VB syntax version of C#,
>>and that's fundamentaly what VB.NET is.
>>
>>The similarites are enormous, and we all know that we can look at some
>>example C# code and easily translate that into the VB.NET equivalent (see
>>http://www.kamalpatel.net/ConvertCSharp2VB.aspx for an online program). Try
>>doing that with C++ to VB6
>>
>>We also all know that there is only about a 20% overlap between VB6 and
>>VB.NET and probably an 10% overlap between VB6 and C# in terms or reusable
>>experience. This seems to be what all of the arguments revolve around.
>>Those who claim VB.NET is simply an upgrade to VB6 are not being honest.
>>VB1-6 (with the slight hiccup of 3-4) were all extensions to the language
>>without modification to the underlying design structures. VB.NET is a
>>replacement, and now it's here we have to live with its existence and either
>>adapt or fall by the wayside.
>
> Hey, Jason! An honest and truthful statement of the obvious at last!
> You see, "coming out" like this is not so hard, is it, people! It just
> needs that initial courage to stand up in front of the others and say,
> "My name is....etc etc". What a shame that so many other .Netizens
> here have attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of us sceptics for
> so long.
>
> Respect!

Yawn.

You always merge the two major objections of the '.NOT'ers (as Dave so
quaintly puts it) into one; that VB.NET is too difficult and that VB.NET is
too different from VB6, and you assume everyone is either an avid supporter
or objector of these combined issues.

I have never claimed the VB.NET is easy (quite the opposite), and I have
always stated that many VB6 users will struggle with the move to VB.NET.
Your comments simply show that you never read the messages on this group
properly and simply spout out whatever sits on the surface of your brain at
that time.

How can you possibly comment on anyone "coming out" over this issue when
you have never "gone in" ? You refuse to even try the move to VB.NET so
how can you make any kind of balanced judgment?
I have never altered my stance over VB.NET, although I have always publicly
stated that the move from VB6 was less painful than I expected once I
absorbed myself in a decent Wrox reference book.

What would really show "initial courage" on your part would be if you
learnt VB.NET and started providing some substance to your arguments
instead of spouting dozens of appalling analogies and unimportant
observations. Until then I doubt that you will gain the respect of anyone
in these newsgroups.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

Dave <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> "Jason Sobell iGadget" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >We also all know that there is only about a 20% overlap between VB6 and
> >VB.NET and probably an 10% overlap between VB6 and C# in terms or reusable
> >experience.
>
> As someone who started off in the .NOT camp, and then actually decided to
> really *try* VB.NET (i.e., not just run the upgrade wizard once and give
> up, as I did the first time), I can say that there is much more than a 20%
> overlap. It is more like 90%.
>
> It is a hardship however - the problems you have to find answers to when
> starting off make it *seem* like there's only a 20% overlap. But looking
> at my upgraded code now, the differences are not all that astounding or unsettling.

Well, the things that didn't stick in my head (the properties and
methods of VB6 forms, or ASP objects, or ADO objects) are radically
different than their .NET counterparts (Windows.Forms, ASP.NET objects,
ADO.NET objects), and that's probably the main thing (other than the
flawed upgraded wizard) driving VB6/VBScript fans nuts.

Of course, I've been a die-hard .NETer from the beginning (and I still
think the Beta2 rollbacks were a bad idea...).

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:23:05 +1100, Jason Sobell iGadget
<igadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Perhaps you should consider a career in dry-stone-wall building,
>grave-digging, or somesuch situation that does not change over decades or
>centuries.

Well, of course, I have a choice, but many do not. Many are being
forced into such allegedly mundane jobs as the IT industry implodes in
upon itself, since the job scene is now dire on both sides of the
pond. Like I said earlier this month, computing has become boring for
most people. The frisson has gone out of it and people are just fed up
with the hype, the viruses, the instability, and the cost. Computing
is starting to go the way of CB radio, still followed, I'm told, by
truckers in grease-stained T-shirts, but outside that niche hardly
figures at all on most people's horizons. The one thing capitalism has
to do to survive is to keep on selling, and if they cannot sell
computers or the idea of computers to the general public, they have to
look around for something else to sell instead. My local branch of a
UK-wide consumer electronics chain was again almost empty yesterday
(Saturday). The chain had a poor Christmas in terms of sales. But a
few doors down, the local camera shop was knee-deep in punters. In
fact, I have tried twice recently to stay in the queue long enough to
get some information, but had to leave because they were so busy. (Of
course, this begs the question why they don't employ more staff, but
that's another question.)

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

On 18 Jan 2003 14:07:59 -0800, "Dave" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>I think in general there's too much bigotry in the debate. The .NOT'ers need
>to admit that VB.NET isn't a totally different language (I've upgraded VB6
>apps to VB.NET so I know the "can't upgrade" criticism is nonsense) and the
>NET'ers need to admit that Microsoft really screwed a lot of previously
>productive developers without really understanding the 'classic' VB developer's
>mindset ("get it done without any BS"). VB.NET is VB, but you'll have to
>pull most of your hair out to get that 10% of code working.

I think your "get it done without any BS" is a very neat and succinct
way of categorising the advent of RAD as epitomised by classic VB.
Contrary to the beliefs of some, who think that this can only be a
recipe for disaster as one programming catastrophe leads to another, a
situation I do not recognise and, moreover, neither did the companies
employing well over three million programmers engaged in developing
hundreds of thousands of successful in-house VB apps, the very nature
of "suck it and see" computing will be the way of the future.
"Programming by example" is, I believe, one term for this kind of
approach. But it has many parallels in other technologies today, where
once everything was rigidly designed and maintained (grease nipples on
every axle, for example). The secret of any successful design is to be
able to dumb it down to the point where everybody can get involved in
it. Thus, DIY, once a cottage industry, has blossomed to the
multi-billion dollar enterprise it is today. In cars, especially, no
one needs - not even mechanics, largely - to know what goes on under
the hood. Everything's been replaced with electronics or otherwise
modularised and if a module fails, just replace it, too. Thus, most
ordinary mechanics don't need to know any longer how to lap in a valve
or fine-tune Solex twin carbs. They just need to know where to hook up
the fancy electronic gear, and tap into a few keystrokes.

Eventually, Microsoft will be no more, or will be under new management
(unless His Billness turns out to be immortal as some folks still
believe). Or there will be another young upstart who comes out of
nowhere and starts to deliver new, exciting products that reawaken
consumers' interest. I reckon easy forms of computer programming will
figure very largely in that, which I assume will start to kick in
within the next five years. For example, many people have said in
rejecting these prognoses in the past how impossible it would be for
smart computers to really take the place of old-style programmers for
anything but the most trivial of applications. But think what has been
said in the past to disparage other important developments. Just take
production line robots as one example. The car industry would not be
competitive if its robots were taken away. But no one, probably only
just thirty years ago, would ever have believed that robots could do
so much accurate, exacting work without *any* human hand, save one or
two attached to men (and female men) in white coats far away in a
glass-fronted cabin.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

No, no! We need to get Microsoft to admit it! That always sets one on
the right path toward a reprieve. It just takes the guts for that
sudden moment to happen in which one stands up and can say before the
others present: "My name is...." etc etc.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:09:45 +1100, iGadget <igadget_@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>What would really show "initial courage" on your part would be if you
>learnt VB.NET and started providing some substance to your arguments
>instead of spouting dozens of appalling analogies and unimportant
>observations. Until then I doubt that you will gain the respect of anyone
>in these newsgroups.

Some people may learn how to adapt to a nest of vipers and even
develop immunity to the poison. Me? I just say, huh, a nest of vipers!
Er, no thanks.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6g0l2vgvo1oo13mca6iing2rflcvlu1kdd@4ax.com...
>
> Some people may learn how to adapt to a nest of vipers and even
> develop immunity to the poison. Me? I just say, huh, a nest of vipers!
> Er, no thanks.
>
> MM (Home of appalling analogies)
You mean to say STUPID analogies ! Which have absolutely nothing to do
with the subject. Or are even remotely comparable.
james

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

> No, no! We need to get Microsoft to admit it!

Mike: That's actually why I wrote the piece that started this thread. I'm
going to use what little influence I have to try to get MS to make the
VB6-to-VB.NET transition more similar to the VC++-to-MC++ transition: "It
Just Works."

If MS won't do it, I think there's a market for a third-party conversion
wizard that does a better job.
--
Phil Weber

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9kj2vs6knl7trsaqufhqrdoklouuq87p9@4ax.com...
> But I see that you obtain some sense of absolution for VB.Net by
> referring to what I wrote six years ago, and since VB.Net needs all
> the support it can get if it is to stay afloat, I'm magnanimous enough
> to allow you to capitalise on anything else I might have written
> before now.

Huh? When VB6 came out....you didn't like the new features and bemoaned the
fact they'd changed things. Now, some years later, you defend, laude and
praise VB6 and all it's features and moan about VB.NET.

I wasn't "capitalising" on anything. I just found it funny. Perhaps in a few
years we can look forward to a new article: "Why don't they leave best
enough alone. VB.NET is great" by yourself.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
news:3e2ad2ff@tnews.web.devx.com...
> > No, no! We need to get Microsoft to admit it!
>
> Mike: That's actually why I wrote the piece that started this thread. I'm
> going to use what little influence I have to try to get MS to make the
> VB6-to-VB.NET transition more similar to the VC++-to-MC++ transition: "It
> Just Works."
>
> If MS won't do it, I think there's a market for a third-party conversion
> wizard that does a better job.

Microsoft will do it, if they perceive that the following three conditions
are met

1. Sales & usage figures are bad for VB.NET
2. They believe this is having a significant negative impact on the chances
of success for the .NET platform overall.
3. They believe fixing it will retrieve the situation.

I don't have access to Microsoft's sales figures, but I have been keeping an
eye on newsgroup volumes in the dotnet groups on the msnews server, which
probably serve as a reasonable indication of usage. The C# groups have about
50% more traffic than the VB.NET groups. I once took a look at a sample of
the posts on the framework groups, to see which languages were being used
more there, and the same ratio seemed to hold.

This suggests to me that very little upgrading of VB6 code is being done,
and that C# is being preferred over VB.NET for new projects. The conclusion
is that most people who have existing VB6 projects are sticking with VB6 for
the time being, and waiting to see what will be available when they decide
they have to move, because VB6 no longer offers the facilities they need.
Also, the conclusion I draw is that VB.NET is by no means the inevitable
destination when these people migrate. In other words, I think that we are
quite close to being able objectively conclude that conditions #1 & #2 have
been met.

It may take Microsoft a while longer to get there - after all, to agree with
this analysis would mean that they also acknowledge that they shouldn't have
ignored the feedback on this topic when they received it during the beta.
That will not be pleasant for them.

I doubt very much that any third-party will work on an improved migration
wizard unless paid to do so by Microsoft. They could so easily be blown out
of the water by Microsoft releasing something better themselves as a free
download to try and improve the acceptance of the language.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 08:44:59 -0800, "Phil Weber"
<pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> > No, no! We need to get Microsoft to admit it!
>
>Mike: That's actually why I wrote the piece that started this thread. I'm
>going to use what little influence I have to try to get MS to make the
>VB6-to-VB.NET transition more similar to the VC++-to-MC++ transition: "It
>Just Works."

I applaud your attempts and hope you get some success.
>If MS won't do it, I think there's a market for a third-party conversion
>wizard that does a better job.

Yes, I am (and have been) very surprised that no one else has sought
to provide just such a tool, although it would have taken until
probably around about now for enough people to have learned the new
product sufficiently to feel comfortable with it. Mind you, the minute
you produce a competitive conversion tool that does a better job,
Microsoft will be rolling up that limo outside your door! Learn
Finnish, mate!

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote
> I don't have access to Microsoft's sales figures, but I have been keeping an
> eye on newsgroup volumes in the dotnet groups on the msnews server, which
> probably serve as a reasonable indication of usage. The C# groups have about
> 50% more traffic than the VB.NET groups. I once took a look at a sample of
> the posts on the framework groups, to see which languages were being used
> more there, and the same ratio seemed to hold.
>
> This suggests to me that very little upgrading of VB6 code is being done,
> and that C# is being preferred over VB.NET for new projects. The conclusion
> is that most people who have existing VB6 projects are sticking with VB6 for
> the time being,

Or it could suggest that C++ developers are looking for a 'better' language and
are generally more of an early adopter type than the VB developers.

I'd agree with the conclusion, but I'd suspect there are 50% more C++ developers
moving to .Net than VB developers, rather than suggest that people are choosing
C# 50% more often than VB.Net. I know it sounds about the same, but consider:

If a hardware store sells baseball gloves, and that town has a league of left-handers.
Then, when All-Star (whoever) comes out with an exciting new glove, the store may
very well see a run on left-handed gloves, over right handed gloves. That does not
mean people are choosing to be left-handed more than right-handed, it means the
store has an increase of a certain type of buyer.

Likewise, I think many of the early adopters are coming from a C++ background,
using a tool that has other languages included. When trying out the Framework
classes, it is only natural that they would select the language that is a close match
to the syntax they are accustomed to.

There is no doubt, some are moving to C# from earlier VB experience, but as
you stated, many existing VB6 projects are staying with VB6 for the time being.
That may be a majority of the VB developers, knowing what we already know
about the dismal upgrade path. That dismal path also may contribute to the slow
adoption rate of VB.Net, resulting in fewer VB.Net posts.